Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Amnesty calls on US to suspend arms sales to Israel

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
laststeamtrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 06:22 AM
Original message
Amnesty calls on US to suspend arms sales to Israel
Source: Guardian

Amnesty calls on US to suspend arms sales to Israel

Hellfire missiles and white phosphorus artillery shells among weapons used in 'indiscriminate' attacks on civilians, says human rights group
Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem
guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 February 2009

Detailed evidence has emerged of Israel's extensive use of US-made weaponry during its war in Gaza last month, including white phosphorus artillery shells, 500lb bombs and Hellfire missiles.

In a report released today, Amnesty International listed the weapons used and called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel and all Palestinian armed groups. It called on the US president, Barack Obama, to suspend military aid to Israel.

The human rights group said those arming both sides in the conflict "will have been well aware of a pattern of repeated misuse of weapons by both parties and must therefore take responsibility for the violations perpetrated".

The US has long been the largest arms supplier to Israel; under a 10-year agreement negotiated by the Bush administration the US will provide $30bn (£21bn) in military aid to Israel.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/23/israel-arms-embargo-gaza
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 07:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. What, and have the Pentagon/MIC loose a prime testing ground
for field testing their newewst bang-bangs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 08:14 AM
Response to Original message
2. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
3. "(A)n immediate arms embargo on Israel and all Palestinian armed groups" would lead
to a settlement. Now all sides let their weapons do the "talking'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livefreest Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
4. how can embargo be enforced against Hamas and Hezbollah?
call of embargo on Israel armament can be fair only if hamas and hezbollah don't get their weapons. quite impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. So you thus promote murder for all eternity
Someone has to blink.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Israel cannot afford to blink.
That prescription is much too simplistic. How can you blink when your adversary is bent of killing you? There can be no peace in the Middle East until Hamas amends it's charter and ceases to call for the destruction of Israel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Israel may not have -officially- called for the destruction of Palestine
Instead, they let their actions do the destruction for them. EMBARGO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
34. Oh really? Who has done 90 or 95 percent of the killing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. If someone wanted to destroy my country, I would probably kill as many of them as I could too.
Of course, some people at DU (not all) have no problem with the provision in the charter of Hamas calling for the destruction of Israel because they too want to see Israel destroyed. That of course is outside of the mainstream of the Democratic party, which has had a long tradition of supporting Israel. In fact, Democratic President Harry Truman was instrumental in the formation of Israel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. You don't seem to have any problem with the fact that Israel...
is predicated on the destruction of the nation (the people) who lived in Palestine prior to the arrival of Zionist colonists in large numbers and the decisions of the British Empire. So by your logic, this nation, that of the Palestinian Arabs, has the right to "kill as many of them as (they) can."

I don't share your logic. I want to see peace and prosperity with no one else being expelled, Arab or Jew. That can only start when the US stops giving carte blanche and firepower to the side that does most of the aggression.

What is the United States' obligation to Israel? None. Time to end the aid.

As for the "mainstream of the Democratic Party," by which you apparently mean the long-term leadership and those who have had the ideological and policymaking hegemony since Truman: they've played a very key role in fucking up everything in the world. If your model is that of Truman, who dropped atomic bombs on defensless cities, started the Cold War and created the CIA, or his successors in that vein through Scoop Jackson and the faction who voted for the Iraq war resolution, then I bet most people on DU would contest the way in which you wish to define the party.

There are primaries every year and even minorities can contest. Perpetually. All terms are battlegrounds - that includes the Democratic Party. From the way you talk, maybe you're the one who should be looking to start a new War Party with social democratic domestic policies. Just so that there's no confusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #40
47. Yes, there are primaries every two years.
So if someone wants to challenge the stalwarts of today's Democratic Party, of course they have every right to do so. In fact, I hope that they do try to take on such strong supporters of Israel as Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry. Let's see how far they get with that. It would take someone even loonier than a crazy conspiracy theorist to think that any of those Democrats have even the remotest of chances of being taken down over the issue of our country's support for Israel. But if you think it could happen, then by all means go for it.

And regarding one of my main heroes, Harry Truman, wasn't he listed as number five out of 43 presidents by 65 prominent historians in a poll conducted by CSPAN last month? He only trailed Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt. That's pretty good in my book and I would respect the opinions of those historians much more than what a few far left wingers at DU say.
After Lincoln, the academics rated George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman as the best leaders overall.

http://tinyurl.com/b4nxd9
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #47
50. Academics are not immune to fluff.
Edited on Tue Feb-24-09 12:34 AM by JackRiddler
You see, I might be inspired with the work of any one of those historians, in the form of a book that I read for days and come to love. And yet it would still be true that I wouldn't give a crap about what a poll of 65 of them says about how they rank presidents.

ON EDIT: Oh, never mind. Have fun in the Herd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moodforaday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. And if the powers of the world
decided one day that half or more of your country becomes someone else's country overnight, wouldn't you want to do the same?

And if that country kept growing for ever and ever, so that you eventually became a dirt-poor refugee in what used to be your own land, wouldn't you want to do the same?

I don't pretend to know what needs to be **done** about that, but I think before we can do anything constructive we need to go back to the start of it all.

Imagine there's an island about to become flooded, Atlantis-style, due to the global warming (just imagine). A large island, with several million inhabitants. Imagine further that in order to save those people, it has been decided that a new country for them will be established in, say, Texas. About half the area of the state will become a new country for the people of the doomed island. Finally - and this is the hardest part to pretend - imagine the US government and its people have not been consulted, and any current US citizens unwilling to leave the designated area will be forcibly expelled. Of course, for the comparison to be even vaguely valid, we should be talking about much more than just one state. Wonder how that would go down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. The problem is that your analogy is invalid.
Jews have lived in Palestine for a very long time, just as long as anyone else has. The United Nations carefully considered all options and voted overwhelmingly to create the State of Israel. They did so in accordance with international law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livefreest Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #48
72. oh thank you
sometimes people close one eye so as to only consider a 2D view of history
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #36
49. You would willingly kill innocent people?
How morally repugnant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #49
57. No, I would act in self defense.
That is allowed by the Geneva Convention by the way. The Israelis are not willfully killing innocent people either. It is well known that Hamas uses innocent people as human shields. If you want to talk about what is morally repugnant, those tactics used by Hamas fit the bill.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livefreest Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #49
73. Oh come on. are you forgetting that
hamas soldiers hide behind Palestinian women as they move and fight during Israeli counter-attacks?
here's something to refresh your memory:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcgCTneQ7Y8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhPJ968hNgU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffFA9458UrY


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #36
56. Israel is destroying itself.
I guess you support the Taliban too, if only on principle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Quite the contrary, Israel is acting to stop being destroyed by Hamas. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. So you keep insisting.
Edited on Tue Feb-24-09 07:52 PM by Usrename
What makes you think they are any different than the Taliban. They each think they have a right to defend themselves. What's the difference? Really.

The way I see it, you exhibit some sort of faith-based ideology that prevents you from seeing this clearly.

You choose to believe that the Israelis are only defending themselves, and to do this they have to kill and oppress a whole class of other folks who don't share their religion. OTOH, you choose to believe that the Taliban is not doing EXACTLY the same thing, for EXACTLY the same reasons.

What specifically is contrary about what Israel is doing? There is no real diffence that you can point to, other than religion. The behavior looks identical, doesn't it? (Israel is better armed than the Taliban, mostly due to our tax dollars being spent in large amounts to arm them. I would go so far as to suggest that if the Taliban were as well-armed as Israel, then they might be more well-behaved than Israel, and they might get along much better with their own neighbors.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #59
62. It's totally ludicrous to compare Israel to the Taliban.
Edited on Wed Feb-25-09 12:28 AM by totodeinhere
I didn't even mention the Taliban, but since you brought it up, the Taliban are tantamount to Islamic fascists. On the other hand, Israel is a parliamentary democracy. The Taliban gives refuge to terrorists who have attacked the USA and would do so again if they got the chance. Israel is our ally. Women and gays have full rights in Israel (I'm not sure about gay marriage,) while the Taliban brutally suppress women and they either kill or mutilate gays.

If I didn't have thick skin from having been posting at DU for awhile, I suppose I would be offended that you would have the temerity to compare Israel to the Taliban.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #62
78. I can see that you haven't come to terms with your own predjudices.
Edited on Wed Feb-25-09 02:59 AM by Usrename
To illustrate your prejudice, let me paraphrase your post for you:

...the Taliban Israelis are tantamount to Islamic Jewish fascists. On the other hand, Israel the Taliban are a parliamentary democracy an apolitical society... the Taliban Israelis brutally suppress women non-Jewish Arabs and they either kill or mutilate gays women and babies.

See how you are?


You also say:

The Taliban gives refuge to terrorists who have attacked the USA and would do so again if they got the chance.

Do you have any evidence at all to support this statement, other than Bush told you it was so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #78
84. You are too glib in throwing around the word "prejudice."
I could just as well assert that it is you who are prejudiced against the Israelis. Plus your analogy is just wrong. First of all, the Taliban are not apolitical. After all, they once formed the de-facto government of Afghanistan and would like to again. And too compare methods used by the Taliban to suppress people with Israeli tactics is way off base. Non Jewish Arabs have full voting rights in Israel, while in the Taliban's world there is no vote.

When I assert that the Taliban are giving refuge to terrorists who attacked us, I am merely agreeing with President Obama. There is no need to bring Bush into this.

'Let me make this clear,'' Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. ''There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.''

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/492202,obama080107.article
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #84
88. Oh, ok. I see how you are.
Obama says alQaida and you think Taliban. Brilliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #88
96. Obama himself mentions al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the same breath.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-02-10-obama-sends-warning-to-alqaeda-taliban

President Barack Obama vowed to prevent al-Qaeda from operating "with impunity" in Afghanistan and urged a combined effort to eradicate safe havens for the Taliban and other militants there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #96
97. Let me take another tack on this.
Let's set aside this whole notion of calling people terrorists, and all this noise about associations with terrorists, and take a look at what took place without the "terrorist" meme thrown into the discussion. Is that even possible for us to do? Let's just try for a moment, anyhow, to look at actual behavior and actual events in order to make a few judments. There is only one reason to designate certain people as "terrorists" for exhibiting the exact same behavior as other folks who are designated "our closest allies in the region."

The question the Taliban asked, and it's a pretty good question, was to show them the evidence against al Qaeda and bin Laden. From what I can tell, a decision was made to bomb them into the stone age as a punishment for asking this one question. Is that close to your understanding of what happened?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. Of course I am well aware of the "one person's terrorist is someone else's freedom...
fighter" approach. And vice versa. But I am unwilling to "set aside this whole notion of calling people terrorists" in this case because the Taliban aided and abetted Al Qaeda in their 9/11 attack that killed Americans, and IMO they would do something like that or even worse again if they could.

And I know that there are a few loony far left wing conspiracy theorists at DU who believe that the CIA or Bush or someone like that was behind the 9/11 attacks, but that view is outside of the mainstream of thought on this issue. And it's not just me saying that. President Obama and Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden among many others also agree that it was Al Qaeda that was responsible for 9/11, and I feel very comfortable in their company. Thank you very much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. I'm glad you have it all figured out. Help me understand, if you will.
Why did the 9/11 Commission Report ignore so many facts, so much solid information, like this stuff:


On October 6, 2001, a senior-level U.S. government official told CNN that U.S. investigators had discovered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (Sheik Syed), using the alias "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad" had sent about $100,000 from the United Arab Emirates to Mohammed Atta. "Investigators said Atta then distributed the funds to conspirators in Florida in the weeks before the deadliest acts of terrorism on U.S. soil that destroyed the World Trade Center, heavily damaged the Pentagon and left thousands dead. In addition, sources have said Atta sent thousands of dollars -- believed to be excess funds from the operation -- back to Saeed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11. CNN later confirmed this.<13>

The 9/11 Commission's Final Report states that the source of the funds "remains unknown."

More than a month after the money transfer was discovered, the head of ISI, General Mahmud Ahmed resigned from his position. It was reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was investigating the possibility that Gen. Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to send the $100,000 to Atta <14>.

The Wall Street Journal was one of the only Western news organizations to follow up on the story, citing the Times of India: "US authorities sought General Mahmud Ahmed's removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 was wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of General Mahmud."<15> Another Indian newspaper, the Daily Excelsior, quoting FBI sources, reported that the "FBI’s examination of the hard disk of the cellphone company Omar Sheikh had subscribed to led to the discovery of the "link" between him and the deposed chief of the Pakistani ISI, Mahmud Ahmed. And as the FBI investigators delved deep, reports surfaced with regard to the transfer of 100,000 dollars to Mohammed Atta, one of the terrorists who flew his Boeing into the World Trade Center. General Mahmud Ahmed, the FBI investigators found, fully knew about the transfer of money to Atta."<16>

The Pittsburgh Tribune notes that there "are many in Musharraf's government who believe that Saeed Sheikh's power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA."<17>

Sheikh rose to prominence with the 2002 killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who at the time was in Pakistan investigating connections between the ISI and Islamic militant groups. In Pakistan, Sheikh was sentenced to death for killing Pearl, however his complicity in the execution and the reasons behind it are in dispute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh


and instead rely entirely on confessions made during torture to come up with their official story? You are aware that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) confessed to killing Pearl? Why is that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. Just so you know...
Edited on Tue Feb-24-09 08:14 PM by rrneck
Hamas shoots with these:



The Israelis respond with these:
(One of the most sophisticated air superiority aircraft in the world.)



It's nothing approaching a fair fight. Hamas simply doesn't have the ability to do Israel any significant harm militarily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #60
63. It's not a case of whether it's a "fair fight" or not.
There shouldn't even be a fight going on over there, so whether it's fair or not is beside the point. If Hamas would recognize Israel, release Gilad Shalit, and stop firing rockets at Israel then there would be no fight and the people of Gaza would not be in harm's way. Israel has no quarrel with the people of Gaza.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #63
67. If Israel would remove their "settlements" (forts)
from the West Bank and allow Gaza to be free there wouldn't be a fight over there either...

Israel is the more guilty since they hold all the cards.

"Israel has no quarrel with the people of Gaza." -- YEAH, Right! Like Hitler had no quarrel with the people of Warsaw.

Brother... :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #67
85. So now you are comparing the Israelis to Hitler?
How Ironic that is. Yet at the same time you seem to have no problem with people who would murder as many Jews as Hitler did if they got the chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #85
90. Evil is as evil does...
and where, oh where in my post did I say I have no problem with people who kill other people of any kind, stripe, ethnicity, sex, race or religious preference?

Don't you DARE put words in my mouth!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #90
95. OK.
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I should have addressed that to vast majority of posters at DU who seem to me to be terribly biased against Israel while giving the atrocities committed by Hamas a pass.

Both sides are far from perfect, but I am just trying to provide a bit more balance to this discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #63
80. That just isn't true at all.
Hamas has tried many times to stop the killings, but Israel keeps killing them anyway.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html

But you probably don't want to know about any of this.



Let me ask you something a little different. Do you think it would be right to argue that a rapist had every right to break a woman's nose because she kicked him in the groin while he was raping her?

If you would take a little time to try and understand the question, you would quickly see that the rapist and the victim are not on equal footing, and their actions should not be judged equally.

Do you agree or disagree with this approach?

If so, then which party is the one that is being oppressed in the I/P conflict? Can you seriously make an argument that the Israelis are the victims here, and that they are suffering under the control and military occupation by the Palestinians?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #63
83. That's correct,
they don't have a quarrel with the people of Gaza. They just want the land they are living on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livefreest Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #60
74. wait... you mean those rockets, if launched by Hamas, are harmless?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #74
82. Compared to
one of the most militarized countries on the planet, backed by the richest and perhaps the most belligerent country on the planet - yes.

Of course they have killed Israelis, but the Israeli response is disproportionate. Furthermore, the treatment of the Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis is deplorable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
45. Hamas can "call" for the destruction of Israel all it wants
but it's not going to get it. At this point, only a deluded few even believe that's possible.

However Israel doesn't need to call for the deaths of well over a thousand Palestinians. It's been doing it pretty constantly. I say this as someone that used to be fairly pro-Israeli and is sympathetic to living in fear of suicide bombers and falling rockets. However, when you simply kill hundreds over a few weeks, probably mostly women and children, well...you aren't doing things right. And we as another nation, shouldn't be supporting that kind of slaughter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnOhioan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #9
52. Oh please.....
Like Hamas has any chance of destroying Israel. Not in this life. Maybe we should regard Israel as an entity perfectly capable of defending themselves for a change. They are not in any danger of being defeated militarily, and have not been in that position for some time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #52
64. It's not as if the Arab states in that region have not tried to destroy Israel.
After the State of Israel was formed in 1948, Arab armies from surrounding states brutally attacked the ragtag Israelis with the stated intention of destroying her even though Israel was legally created by a UN mandate. But then I'm sure you know that.

As far as the situation today goes, Hamas itself would disagree with your contention that they do not have the wherewithal to destroy Israel. Children in Islamic schools in Gaza are taught that it will be a long struggle that might might last for generations, but that Hamas and the Palestinians will ultimately "liberate" all of Palestine and drive the Israelis into the sea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #64
69. In 1948, the Zionists also
"ethnically cleansed" the ancient state of Palestine of their inconvenient Arabs.

I love you revisionist fanatics... :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livefreest Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #69
76. ancient state of Palestine?
None of those states existed b4 the British drew the borders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #76
87. Palestine was a Biblical state. OT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livefreest Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #52
75. still israelis remain a minority in the region.
Thus making them permanantely vulnerable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #9
68. Wow. I wouldn't worry about Hamas if I were you...
Edited on Wed Feb-25-09 01:53 AM by ProudDad
Since they're so god damn incompetent at the killing game compared to the Israeli occupiers.

1,000 Palestinian dead for each Israeli...

Pretty weenie...

Blink away!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livefreest Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #5
65. unfortunately it's the Hamas' actions
and beliefs which are killing Palestinians. i think it's the saddest part of the history of the Palestinian people. As much we demand of Israel, to help the Palestinian people, should be demanded of Hamas today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #65
91. No, it's USAmerikan weapons, money and support
along with the Israeli's greed that are killing Palestinian people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. That's a funny question - who embargoed Israel from acquiring hundreds of nuclear weapons?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
30. Well, for starters, we don't sell or give weapons to the Palestinians
Secondly, the Israelis are perfectly capable of making their own weaponry - all we do is supplement their own stuff.

Israel makes its own weapons. Palestinian groups smuggle theirs. We don't need to provide for either side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
44. Just because Iran and Syria are in the wrong
doesn't mean we should too. We know that Iran and Syria back the two groups you mentioned and rightfully those actions are condemned. However, if we are to be seen as any sort of credible peace-broker in the region, any military aid - especially when it is well known that it is being used to kill civilians indiscriminately - should cease.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livefreest Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #44
77. israelis should adhere to their democratic foundations if they are to survive
and keep international support. in that end they would withdraw from the West Bank. but let's not forget that Hamas hides behind civilians. take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcgCTneQ7Y8 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhPJ968hNgU , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffFA9458UrY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
6. Amnesty gets it. Cut off all aid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
7. We need some serious change in this area.
1. Why are we giving any aid to Israel? Aren't they the top recipient of aid? We are broke and didn't they just sign a major arms deal to produce military equipment for another country?

2. I'm not a great mathematician but common sense would seem to indicate that if by your actions you create more "terrorists," the probability that a successful strike against the U.S. will occur increases because there is no way we can safety proof this country 100%.

We are broke and reports predict that the power of the U.S. will rapidly decline. If I was Israel, I would think about getting a peace agreement in place before this occurs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
8. Associated article
Human rights investigators have been trawling through the rubble in Gaza and gathering testimonies in an attempt to piece together a picture of the way both sides fought and the weapons they used.

International law demands that a distinction is made between combatants and non-combatants, and civilian casualties proportionate to the military gains from the attack in which they occurred.

But Amnesty International has concluded that some Israeli attacks "were directed at civilians or civilian buildings", while "others were disproportionate or indiscriminate".


As well as the way Israeli forces used white phosphorous in the conflict, which Amnesty has dubbed a war crime, the organisation has also raised concerns about other weapons and their use. These range from the firing of high explosive artillery shells, which have a large margin of error, in populated areas, to concerns that Israeli forces were trigger-happy in their use of more precise weapons such as tank shells.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7905320.stm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
10. Obama has an opportunity here to be the change he said he would.
The only humane option is to stop selling weapons. This country has been hijacked by war profiteers and merchants of death and brutality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
11. but, but -- arms sales are THE biggest money-maker for US industries
without arms sales, US would no longer be #1 in ANYthing.
but that would be a GOOD thing. unfortunately, Obama seems to be merely a Trojan horse for the powers that be, who will in no way, shape, or form cut off their big money-making arms sales. ferchrissake, they might have to try to live on several billion less per year. money/profits are ALL that matters. Death and suffering? Injustice? is there money to be made with those? therefore, they will continue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disndat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. Absolutely.
The MIC and Bush people have exploited holocaust guilt shamelessly to make money and kill a lot of innocent people in the Mid East including Israelis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
24. Were Number #1 in GMO Frankenfoods!
Hurray! I'm sure the troops in Iraq love them vittles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livefreest Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #24
79. think about it. once every american grows 2 heads,
americans will remain ahead of the curve in smarts! America will thus remain the greatest country in the world.:woohoo: :patriot: :toast: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
13. We just had a wonderful presentation at our UU church (community) ..
about Amnesty International ... and this matter ... led by our beloved member who is also a member of Amnesty International.

Thank you for the post, and I thank Amnesty for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
14. To be consistant...
Edited on Mon Feb-23-09 11:50 AM by Ozymanithrax
For their part, Palestinian militants in Gaza were arming themselves with "unsophisticated weapons" including rockets made in Russia, Iran and China and bought from "clandestine sources", it said. About 1,300 Palestinians were killed and more than 4,000 injured during the three-week conflict. On the Israeli side 13 were killed, including three civilians. Amnesty said Israel's armed forces carried out "direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects in Gaza, and attacks which were disproportionate or indiscriminate".

The US is not the only country selling death in the region.

IF you want to stop the fighting, don't sell weapons to either side. This will not keep them from throwing rocks, but the ranges are so much shorter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #14
55. In fact...
Amnesty called for an end to arms-dealing with both sides and brought up those who deal with Hamas as well.


'IF you want to stop the fighting, don't sell weapons to either side'

I agree, as does Amnesty.

As I've said elsewhere, I would like to see a massive cut in the whole arms trade. The only problem (and quite a big one!) is that, though it would be good for peace, it would be disastrous for the global economy. Therefore it won't happen any time soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
15. The citizens of this country deserve a tv network that gives a voice to Amnesty and
the Red Cross and all the legal and charity organizations that help innocents. We also deserve a fair and balanced network.

Fair Act?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
16. Does the president have the balls to say "NO" to AIPAC and the like?
Edited on Mon Feb-23-09 12:09 PM by Tarc
I certainly hope so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
classysassy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Most of our politicians
are spineless cowards,when it come to Israel's bad behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
18. Bravo for asking the question that matters most from a US perspective:
Edited on Mon Feb-23-09 12:28 PM by JackRiddler
It's not,

"How can we get peace in the Middle East"

though this must be the ultimate goal.

It's not,

"Do you support Israel or Palestine,"

as the debate usually plays out on DU and in other left-liberal contexts.

It is:

"Should the US continue arming Israel?" To the tune of $3-5 billion a year, one might add.

Plain and simple. Our tax money, extended unconditionally, props up Israel, and that's what we need to be debating. This is an American issue, not a Middle East issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dortiz Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
19. Good call
We should not take sides in the ages-long middle east battles. Let them come to an agreement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
22. No dice Amnesty.
Not when you have Iran cookin up nuclear weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Prove it
Until I see proof, and not some windbag neocon claiming it's so, I don't believe it.

And yes, seeing a mushroom cloud is acceptable proof, as there would be no hesitation or ambiguity as long as one could actually prove it was Iranian and not an Israeli nuke detonated as a false flag.

In my opinion, we shouldn't meddle in it at all, because scenarios like that are all part of the War Game mentality that runs our Military. Trouble is the games end without any suffering or trauma to the people left alive or injured. Just "Press Any Key to Restart Simulation"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. I don't believe for one second that Iran's nuclear program
is being used for completely peaceful purposes.

Why wouldn't they try to build a nuclear weapon?

Fortunately, the Unites States will be rolling its eyes at Amnesty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Whereas it's certain that Israel's are for military purposes, since they've got nukes already.
Besides that "Iran's nuclear program" is neo-neocon propaganda: The worst propaganda is the suggestion that it's some kind of nightmare in a world where there are already 30,000 nuclear weapons (or whatever the total is).

Israel has 120 nukes at least, so they won't be under any threat from the theoretical Iranian 2012 model nuke.

Please let us know if there's any state propaganda you don't buy.

By the way, I hear the domino effect is sure to lead to a fully communist Asia, and then they will come over here, so we'd best send more troops to Vietnam.

And stop speaking for the "United States." We're not rolling our eyes, we want peace and that means ending Israel's carte blanche to kill at will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Actually, Israel has closer to 300 nuclear war heads now.


Dimona cranks out plutonium regularly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3340639.stm

And I'm not speaking for the United States. I'm telling you how the United States will proceed.

You're dreaming if you think the U.S. is planning on cutting off military aid.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. I was low-balling since too high a number brings certain trolls out...
who, even today, will claim there was never an admission, blah blah. But I figure you're right.

History only appears to be predetermined because it's the same thing, over and over, for decades or centuries. And then, suddenly, something else happens.

And if in 1987 I'd tell you the wall would come down in Berlin before 1990, a great many people would say I was dreaming.

I believe in dreams. The dream always precedes the reality, and is the necessary first step. There's even a national holiday for a man whose signature quote is that he has a dream. And much of that dream came true.

In the United States, the power of the unconditionally pro-Israeli stance has peaked. Same is true of the war on drugs. When either will change is still in question, and one man's dream is another's proposed timetable.

Though the means for peace and security have been in its hands for decades, Israel in a deep spiritual crisis, an illusion of mini-empire it cannot let go. With the logic it is pursuing, it is very close to doing things, horrific and unfortunate things, that will turn even US public opinion against it.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livefreest Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #29
81. well this BBC article is pretty thin on substantive proof.
a whole lot of people are guesstimating in it. don't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #26
70. Maybe Iran would like a nuke
to counter the 400+ nukes that Israel's sitting on?

Eh, bunky? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
23. Israel was just getting rid of stale weaponry
If you examine the Freshness seal on Phosphrous Shells, it clearly says "Best Used Before 5/1/2009".

We did it in 1990 with the stockpile of aging Cruise Missiles that were rotting toward uselessness by launching a crapload onto Iraq the first time.

Ten years later, the replacement batch freshness seal was about to expire, so we had another little Wargasm.

Do you guys really think that the 700 Billion dollar military budget for 2009 is going towards VA Medical Care or Hospitals? Hah!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coffee and Cake Donating Member (140 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
27. Cut off all aid to Israel
Israel is one of the biggest welfare states. For being a modern economy with a military that could give the UK a run for its money, Israel does not need anymore aid.

Israel is in violation of the Arms Export Control Act, but since most of Congress is sleeping with AIPAC, they will bat a blind eye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
31. The Empire laughs at Amnesty Inetrnational and says "Fuck you."
I am not condoning that action, just making mention that is what the response will be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. That's what the empire did to Tom Paine, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. I know. Good point. But we stand at the last snuffings of the Enlightenment.
The original Tom Paine stood at it's pinnacle.

I am not advocating giving up, not in the least, but I know what I see. bad and getting worse. Crazy and getting crazier.

Pretty much everything I expected to see if the coming future was among the worst, very little of waht I'd hoped to see if I thought the coming future was brightening.

We should never give up, but we damned well better understand where we are and what is likely coming, now 8 years closer and right on course, from the immediate ramped-up Uber-Crazy of the RW Noise Machine to Obama's puzzling capitulations on missing e-mails and leaving 51 Bushie Criminals masquerading as US Attorneys, undermining law and justice.

I hope I am wrong. Tom Paine would have hated to have lived now, at the coming of Inverted Totalitarianism and the pefection of perception control. He would already be dead or fully discredited and/or destroyed, if he lived today. As would have Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Martin Luther King, had the Might Wurlitzer of the Bush Noise Machine talen aim at them.

I know, not very Tom Paine-like. But I would love to switch places with Tom Paine, lack of antibiotics and all, and let's see what would happen to HIM in this Bushified-Nazified, over-pacified nation.

Maybe a cop out, Jack. I don't know anymore. What I do know is that the Greater Depression has just begun, and the Bushies are just about ready, intheir minds, to murder or allow the murder 6,000,000 or so Liberals, if they get the word from corrrupt Bushie Tyrants and delivered through the Bushiganda Mighty Wurlitzer that AUTHORITY said it was OK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeoConsSuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #31
39. Sadly, I agree
two of the biggest drains on the American taxpayer: Israel and US weapons producers.

Hopefully, one day the sheep will wake up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
35. K&R for Amnesty Int'l. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
37. Yes, please. Let's stop enabling expansionist murderers like olmert.
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff30997 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
42. K&R

Israel don't need the U.S at all to get weapons:


"Study: Four Israeli companies join global top 100 arms list

By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent, and Haaretz Service


Four Israeli companies appear in a list of the top 100 arms dealers in the world, according to a report published Monday by Amnesty International. The companies are Israel Aircraft Industries, Rafael Arms Development Authority and Israel Military Industries.

The report, entitled "Arms without Borders", was launched as the United Nations opened its annual session on arms control, in the run up to a landmark vote at the UN to start work on an Arms Trade Treaty. It stresses that despite the lack of evidence that companies on the list violate international laws, the global arms trade encourages countries to violate human rights.

According to the report, two-thirds of weapons manufactured in Israel are designated for export."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/769478.html





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhymeandreason Donating Member (255 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
43. White Phosphorous is one of the most disgusting
Edited on Mon Feb-23-09 11:26 PM by rhymeandreason
weapons ever contrived. The use of WP against civilians is indefensible.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_(weapon)
2008/9 Israel–Gaza conflict
Human rights groups say that Israel used white phosphorus munition during the 2009 conflict in Gaza.<23>

Several reports <24><25><26> indicate that white phosphorus shells were used by Israel in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Human Rights Watch claims shells exploded over populated civilian areas, including a crowded refugee camp<27> and a United Nations school where civilians were seeking refuge<28>. Additionally, Human Rights Watch has claimed that White phosphorus injuries are suspected in the cases of ten burn victims.<29>

Chris Gunness, a spokesman for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), claimed that three such shells were responsible for injuries to three of its employees. Human Rights Watch said its experts in the region had witnessed the use of white phosphorus. Kenneth Roth, the organisation's executive director, added: "This is a chemical compound that burns structures and burns people. It should not be used in populated areas."<30> Gaza is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. The population density of Gaza is comparable to that of Gibraltar and metropolitan Tel Aviv.<31><32><33>.

Amnesty International said a fact-finding team found "indisputable evidence of the widespread use of white phosphorus" in crowded residential areas of Gaza City and elsewhere in the territory.<34> Donatella Rovera, the head of an Amnesty fact-finding mission to southern Israel and Gaza, said: "Israeli forces used white phosphorus and other weapons supplied by the USA to carry out serious violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes."<35>


There is no excuse for this. No waffling, no acquiescent falling back on the need to compromise, to be pragmatic, "reach across the aisle" this policy and these weapons constitute wanton criminality on a massive scale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-09 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
46. I am surprised
Someone actually called for cutting off arms to Hamas. Wow. Iran will definitely ignore this and continue to send a flood of arms to Hamas and any other group that likes to kill Jews (" must be wiped off the map"). Then we cut off arms to Israel. All of the neighboring Arab countries will yet again invade as soon as they sense weakness in Israel's military. It will be a total slaughter since none of the current Muslim leaders have the wisdom or compassion of Saladin.

Wait, maybe that's the plan. The problems in the Middle East would be so much easier to solve if we just let all the Jews get killed off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnOhioan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #46
53. Nice melodrama
The Arab countries have been soundly defeated more than once when attacking Israel. What makes you think they are eager to have a repeat performance? Israel is the strongest nation in the mideast, anyone who claims otherwise is just plain wrong.

As far as your last sentence...complete and utter nonsense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #53
61. Why a repeat performance?
I explained that. With an arms embargo against Israel and unlimited weapons flowing in from Iran and other anti-Israel sources we will reach a point where the Arab nations could destroy Israel. Israel will only exist as long as it remains capable of defending itself. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will get his wish as soon as that is no longer the case.

As for the last sentence, excuse a bit of hyperbole to make a point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #61
71. You conveniently forget Israel's nuclear arsenal (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #71
89. It's doubtful they'll use it
Especially when Iran becomes a regional nuclear power, and have no doubt the nuclear-capable missiles they already have, and that are capable of hitting Israel from deep within Iranian airspace, will be re-tipped. Even then Israel can't use nukes in Gaza and the West Bank because it would kill thousands of Israelis too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #89
92. You really don't know much about warfare or weapons...
Iran has NO nuclear weapons. Even if they did, they don't have the means to deliver them to Israel.

Israel has over 400 nuclear bombs and the means to deliver them TO IRAN.

That's why the Iranian people are nervous, especially since the Israelis have already unilaterally and illegally bombed other lands in the past...

As for Gaza and the West Bank, they have no need of nuclear weapons there since they (illegally) control all of the strategic heights in the West Bank and have turned Gaza into a blockaded prison colony, much like the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943... No need for nukes there...

Check it out...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. Iran will soon
Israel having them and Iran having them means MAD again, nobody will use them. Iran does have nuclear-capable cruise missiles that can reach from inside Iran to Israel. Even if they didn't, they would have no problem getting a Palestinian to blow himself up with one in Israel.

But I do love how much you assume. I used to work with nuclear weapons. I was trained to launch them and gauge their damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
51. Let's save $15 million a day in Israeli aid . . .!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-09 06:52 AM
Response to Original message
54. Amnesty urges UN to ban arms to Israel and Hamas (Video)
Edited on Tue Feb-24-09 06:53 AM by Turborama
The UN security council is being urged to impose an immediate arms embargo on Israel and armed Palestinian factions like Hamas.

Amnesty International is calling for the weapons blockade, after an investigation into the war on Gaza concluded both sides may be guilty of commiting war crimes.

Israel and Hamas are accused of deliberately putting civilians at risk.

But as Jacky Rowland explains, neither side is prepared to accept Amnesty's report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JtcvoOwnfE



(Typo edit)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
66. The dirty little secret is...
Edited on Wed Feb-25-09 02:01 AM by ProudDad
The ONLY nation in the "middle east" with a nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver it is Israel...

If the U.S. government officially recognized that fact, it would be ILLEGAL to supply any form of military support to that rogue nation.

That's why Obama side-stepped Helen Thomas' question in his first press conference about whether he knew of any nuclear power in the "middle east"... He didn't dare acknowledge that he DID know about the only one...Israel. (Good ole' Helen -- sharp as ever -- the only reporter with the guts to ask a real question!)

The other dirty little secret is that the Israeli "settlements" in the West Bank make a two state solution impossible -- and the Israeli (fascist) government knows it. That's been their intention ever since they began breaking International Law and U.N. Security Council Resolutions in 1967.

Cutting off military aid at this point WOULD be a good start though...

:applause: Amnesty International (among others) :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
86. Shouldn't the gungeon nuts be here to advocate for arming both sides? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #86
93. Those wackos are too busy arming bears (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC